From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1aYtUs-0005NF-TU for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:50:15 +0000 Message-ID: <1456397391.4719.30.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Filesystems over UBI can't handle badblocks From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Guilherme de Oliveira Costa , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:49:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7F9DB42F7DDA544EA3EB31D694929A30EB84DA@PERU.autotrac.corp> References: <7F9DB42F7DDA544EA3EB31D694929A30EB84DA@PERU.autotrac.corp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 20:08 +0000, Guilherme de Oliveira Costa wrote: > As you can see, UBI starts just fine, and I'm able to initialize > ubiblk and at least mount the filesystem. I thought UBI was supposed > to make any badblocks transparent to the upper layers... Is there a > problem with that tought, or did my manual tampering (with nand > markbad) got in the way of UBI's bad block management capabilities? It is right that UBI makes things transparent to upper layers. However, this is true only if you follow a set of reasonable rules, like you do not go and change the MTD partition directly, all the changes go via UBI. Marking an eraseblock as bad is a change, and it should be done via UBI, not directly via MTD. Now, how to do it via UBI? I think this is not supported, but it can be implemented, I believe.